I like the way I map things out

When you think somebody is being irrational, cruel or stupid it’s useful to ask yourself a simple question, David Rawlings says. ‘What must the world look like from inside that person’s head for this action to be the best choice?’

Apparently there’s an important negotiation about to start. Something to do with boring old trade deals. At least it will all be over in two years. So, nothing to worry about really!

But it does remind me of something that comes up a lot in helping with difficult relationships, whether personal or professional. It’s the idea that perceptions are more important than facts.

If, like me, you see many things that need to be done in our communities, countries or the world, then you probably find it hard to understand why everyone else can’t see them too. It’s almost as though people live in different worlds…

…Which of course they do!

We humans have a need to find meaning in everything, and so we are compelled to imagine what others “meant” by their words and actions. Inventing our own account of what other people are thinking is one aspect of the way we construct our own reality. But it isn’t “real”, it’s a representation of the world – a map that’s personal and internal to our minds.

“The map is not the territory” – Alfred Korzybski, 1931

We believe, naturally, that our internal map of the world is the same as the real thing. Actually, in many ways, it’s more important, but it isn’t the same. Your subjective perception of the world around you contains elements that are practically unknowable in the real world, for example what other people are thinking, or what they intended by the things they did and said.

The map is full of information that has been constructed, imagined, made up – but you believe it to be accurate. For example, if your first impression of someone on first meeting them is that they behave aggressively, then you label them “aggressive” and file them accordingly in your internal archive. If that perception was wrong, in the sense that you misread their emotional state and their intention, then it usually takes a lot of contrary evidence to make you revise it. (This can all be unconscious – you aren’t necessarily aware that this has happened, but it will affect your future responses to that person.)

We also believe, again naturally enough, that everyone else’s map is the same as ours. But of course it never is, and most misunderstandings arise from different maps. They might be comical or they might be violently destructive.

In my map, I can be forthright and uncompromising in doing what I think needs to be done because my intention is positive, for the greater good. In your map, ignoring others’ sensibilities is never acceptable and so you disapprove of what I do and even oppose me. The fact that we might share the same ultimate goal for our community or team doesn’t stop us falling out.

Your map is formed from sensory data after it has been filtered through values, beliefs and existing memories. It embodies your morality, or sense of right and wrong. This can be very divisive because we find it difficult to talk about. It’s hard to justify your feeling that something is “just wrong” because you hardly ever have to think about it, so you treat it as non-negotiable and simply say nothing. The difference is unacknowledged and therefore persists while attention focuses on the specific actions (for example you did something that upset me) which are argued over endlessly with no resolution.

Tenaciously arguing your case, sticking to your guns and not giving an inch are behaviours that are often held up as admirable. But I’d suggest that such digging-in is only appropriate when you’ve reached the end of negotiation and you’re signalling that you won’t compromise anymore and would rather walk away without agreement – “no deal is better than a bad deal”. It’s not appropriate to start a conversation in that way. Exploring each other’s maps is much more productive. In disputes, people on opposite sides often really want much the same things.

Getting inside your opponent’s head is the first step towards finding common ground. This might mean asking questions about their underlying beliefs and presuppositions, and these are not things to be argued with! In this instance, they are simply facts. If you’re coaching, you can challenge beliefs – that’s usually where change has to occur – but whenever you have a direct interest in the situation, as a party in the dispute, then you are definitely NOT coaching.

When you think about somebody’s irrational, cruel or stupid behaviour, it’s useful to ask yourself the question: “What must the world look like from inside that person’s head for this action to be the best choice?”

Then you might go on to ask: “How can I be so sure that their actions really are irrational, cruel or stupid?”

And then: “How might people view me and my behaviours from within their different maps?”

So where does that get us?

If you get used to the idea that your understanding of everything is just one of an infinite variety of ways that reality can be mapped – and that they are all equally valid – then you can begin to expand your influence. You do that, not by forcing others to agree with you, rather by helping them to identify the areas of overlap.

If you believe that our politicians understand and are informed by these ideas then you can rest easy.

News Bites

May to hold talks with Merkel in Berlin
Theresa May is due to hold talks with German Chancellor Angela Merkel as she seeks to make progress on negotiating Brexit. The PM will travel to Berlin for the meeting at the Chancellery. It comes a day ahead of a speech on Saturday in which she is expected to set out the “security partnership” she wants to maintain with the EU. The UK is under pressure to reveal more detail about the final relationship it wants with the EU. Mrs May and her ministers are setting out what has been dubbed “the road to Brexit” in a series of speeches. BBC news, February 16

UK aims to keep financial rules close to EU
The UK is ready to set out its vision for how it wants financial services to operate after Brexit and favours an ambitious “mutual recognition” of regulations to preserve the City of London’s access to the EU. Under Britain’s proposal, the UK and the EU would recognise each other’s regulatory and supervisory regimes and would have aligned rules at the point of Brexit, with a mechanism that would monitor any divergence. Three senior figures briefed on Brexit discussions in the cabinet said that the government will back the proposal, which is also favoured by Mark Carney, the Bank of England governor. Financial Times, February 16

Business leader warns May against harsh immigration policy
British companies are facing a recruitment crisis, with labour shortages hitting critical levels in some sectors, according to a business leader who has urged the government to produce details on a post-Brexit immigration system. Adam Marshall, the director general of the British Chambers of Commerce, said the lack of candidates for some jobs was biting hard, and he warned ministers against bringing forward a “draconian and damaging” visa or work permit system. Surveys by the BCC showed that nearly three-quarters of firms trying to recruit had been experiencing difficulties “at or near the highest levels since [BCC] records began over 25 years ago”, he said. The Guardian, February 16

Lecturers want ‘radical’ tuition fee review
University staff are calling for a “radical” overhaul of tuition fees and higher education funding in England in a review of student finance. Sally Hunt, leader of the University and College Union, says the review must be more than “tinkering at the edges”. The review, expected to be formally announced in the near future, follows a promise by the prime minister to examine the cost of university. Theresa May said the review would show “we have listened and we have learned”. Ms Hunt, whose members are threatening strike action next week in a pensions dispute, says there needs to be a “fundamental look at university funding”. BBC news, February 16

Shampoo ‘as bad a health risk as car fumes’
Shampoo, oven cleaner, deodorant and other household products are as significant a source of the most dangerous form of air pollution as cars, research has found. Scientists studying air pollution in Los Angeles found that up to half of particles known as volatile organic compounds (VOCs) came from domestic products, which also include paint, pesticides, bleach and perfumes. These compounds degrade into particles known as PM2.5, which cause respiratory problems and are implicated in 29,000 premature deaths each year in the UK. Traffic had been assumed to be the biggest source of air pollution. The new findings, published in the journal Science, led to warnings that countries may struggle to hit pollution targets, with most tackling vehicle emissions. The Times, February 16

US rejects China bid for Chicago Stock Exchange
The US has rejected a proposed merger between the Chicago Stock Exchange and a Chinese-linked investor group. The decision comes after more than two years of reviews by officials. The tie-up was initially approved by the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, pending further approval by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). But US politicians, including President Trump, have said letting a Chinese firm invest in a US exchange was a bad idea. Under the proposal, the Chinese-led North America Casin Holdings group would have bought a minority share of the privately owned Chicago Stock Exchange. BBC news, February 16

Labour gets 16,000 emails in five days urging it to consult on Brexit
More than 16,000 people have emailed Labour over the past five days, urging the party to consult members on Brexit after MPs said the topic was being ignored by its most senior policy body. The emails from party members will be examined by the party’s national policy forum (NPF), which meets this weekend in Leeds, and whose members include the shadow cabinet and trade union leaders. Labour has set up eight policy commissions since last year’s general election, to consult members and develop policy, but none focus on Brexit. The party has said Brexit is covered under the international policy commission, involving Keir Starmer, the shadow Brexit secretary, but that commission is not at the moment accepting submissions on Brexit. The Guardian, February 15